Herald Blogs

So one of the national news stories I've been following lately is about Jason Stinson, a high school football coach in Kentucky who was charged recently with reckless homicide over the death of one of his players.

I don't know if I think Stinson should have been charged with murder, but having made a lame attempt - literally; I had bum knees - at high school sports, I'm convinced any time you put your kid on a field or a court these days with some guy you know little about, you're gambling with your kid's health.

I don't think I'm being melodramatic. I had a basketball coach at one of my high schools who called my asthma attacks "sissy fits." There were times I'd have killed for just a few seconds with my inhaler. And no, I didn't complain. To whom? My team mates? My parents? That's not how teenage boys think.

I tease friends and acquaintances who are "helicopter parents," who hover over their kids and refuse to give 'em space. But when it comes to high school competitive sports, I plan on being a helicopter parent one day too.

My column tomorrow. In case I forget to link to it first thing in the morning, you'll be able to go to MiamiHerald.com, scroll down about 2/3 of the way till you see the orange bar that says "Commentary," and click on "columnists" to the right of the bar, unless you see my fat face right there. If you see my face, just click it.

A little preview: It's about a recent murder victim here in Miami, the circles in which he ran, the sad fact that his words may have led to someone killing him, and the fact that some people will unwittingly make excuses for his killers by blaming his favorite form of entertainment.

Words don't kill. People do. Unless, of course, the words are "throw the switch," or something to that effect.

The blogger had only written a few posts and had even fewer feedback comments, and it was clear from viewer traffic that only a smattering of people had even visited the blog. But still, the model was understandably annoyed.

She hires an attorney, launches a campaign to publicly (on network television) denounce the anonymous blogger, and makes plans to sue the anonymous blogger for harm allegedly caused to the former model's reputation.

But first the former model and her attorney sue Google, the owner of Blogger.com, to compel the company to supply them with the anonymous blogger's IP address and email address.

I assumed they'd lose that suit, but earlier this week a federal judge sided with the former model and ordered Google to turn over the info.

Today the former model announced that she'd figured out who wrote the blog post(s) calling her a skank. It was a passing acquaintance. The model says she telephoned the acquaintance and demanded to talk about things. The blogger nervously declines and suggests they go through their respective attorneys. But the model says no attorneys, tells the blogger she forgives her, and reiterates that they should get together and talk things over.

End of story.

As (almost) always, I have mixed feelings about this one - this time 'cause I'm not sure where the line protecting the 1st Amendment stops and the gray area that poorly governs the Web starts.

I don't blame the model for being angry. Who wants to be called a skank? But if I sued for everything mean-spirited that I've been called online I'd be rich...or I'd owe lots of attorney fees for cases I believe would have been ultimately tossed out of court.

The nature of blogs seems to be loose and carefree - unless, like this one, they're written under the auspices of a larger corporation that requires certain evidentiary standards.

I mean if this anonymous blogger can be sued for calling a woman a skank, does this mean the snark bloggers who make money off of comic insults, like Brendon Donnelly of WWTDD.com, will be sued next?

Yeah, there are laws against slander and libel. But I think when it's online, unless someone does genuine, tangible harm to your reputation or earning power, you should probably turn the other cheek. Otherwise, you might inadvertently drive more traffic to the offending blog, by complaining about it publicly in the first place.

In a New York Daily News story linked above, the former model, asked why she pursued this case so doggedly, replied "Why would anybody let it go? If somebody attacks [you] on the street, you're not going to let it go."

I have to partly disagree with her - and my column tomorrow touches on this notion. But "why would anybody let it go?" Because it's a short collection of dumb words, that's why. The former model even says in the article that she considers the blogger inconsequential. So let it go. Not that big of a deal. I get called nasty crap all the time in other people's blogs. I have absolutely no interest in finding out who those people are...unless I can find out and go put an arse whuppin' on 'em without anyone finding out.

Those of you who've read my blog for more than a day know that one of my constant pet peeves is stereotyping out of context and uninformed broad generalizations.

It's a conversation killer. It's a negotiation killer. It's a healthy compromise killer. It's a trust killer, and an understanding killer. If we were talking romance right now, I'd say it - the stereotyping and broad generalizing - is a deal breaker.

I try to make it clear regularly that no one is ever going to typecast me as being "conservative" or "liberal" or all "pro" this or all "anti" that. I'm pro good sense, no matter what it "looks" like.

I'll be in your corner until the second you become a "black columnist" instead of a "colunist."

If you decide to be the champion of black causes or Obama or the race card, I'm out. If you decide to be the champion of all people, including whites, Hispanics and conservatives, I'm for you.

Truth knows no race or political leaning. Truth is deserving of a champion. Be that.

Hmmm, so let me get this straight, Al Charteer, in order to exhort me to not be a racist, and to not be a "black colunist (sic)," and to not play "the race card," you write me a note that assumes from its start that I fit any or all of your stereotypes.

Well, I hate to disappoint you, my friend, but you might want to get out of my corner now, 'cause I'm going to be a "black columnist."

I have no choice. Like my grandfather told me when I was a kid, there are only two things that I will always be 100% certain of at all times: that I am black, and that one day I'll die. Those are the two elements of my life that will never change, unless that machine Walt Disney supposedly slept in really does exist. And no amount of scrubbing is going to alter the color of my skin. Turning white didn't do Michael Jackson any good.

Get used to it.

Yes, I'm being coy. I know by "black colu(m)nist," you mean a stereotypical liberal who fits your description of a soldier in a vast leftwing media conspiracy, a colu(m)nist who uses his pulpit to preach that the world revolves around African Americans and African American "issues." I know that's what you meant, because your entire comment in context proved it. But what I'm trying to demonstrate to you and your ilk is that your arguments - whether baseless or legit - are indictments of culture, not color. Sadly, you don't get that because you assume that people who look a certain way are all but guaranteed to think, act, and opine a certain way.

You can't have read my prior opinions on anything. If you had, you'd know that my opinions run the gamut from right to left, and most often rest firmly in the middle. And you would know that trying to tell me that truth knows no race or political leaning is like trying to tell a golfer that his goal is to hit the little white ball into the cup: unnecessary. It's like me feeling the need to tell you that "white ball" isn't a display of my racist feelings toward white balls. It's just a common sense analogy about golf.

So, I am a black columnist, and as I've always done with my opinions, I'll cover a wide range of social issues - sometimes issues of specific interest to black people, or Latino people, or white people, or Albino people, or men, or women, or children, or porn stars with one leg, or roosters who only crow on a lunar equinox, or politicians, or people who make assumptions about writers whose work they're not familiar.

So, in addition to writing feature articles, I'm now adding "columnist" to my shingle. Starting Friday, my weekly column will run on the Metro section front of The Miami Herald. And if you don't get the paper, you can read it each week at MiamiHerald.com. I'll also be doing a weekly live chat on Friday afternoons with anyone who wants to question, challenge, agree, or just mix it up with me about that day's column, or anything else that's relevant in the news. Read all about it, here, or watch a short piece on it, here.

I am excited, no doubt about that. Most of you know the difference, but for the few stragglers, let me explain. In news articles you (should) find a combination of facts and details tracked down and compiled by the reporter, with context - who, what, when, where, why, etc.

In columns and editorials, and the like, a news writer gives his opinion on those facts and details, and that context.

So until now, my blog has been the only place I've bee able to share my opinion, since it was imperative to keep it out of my "news" articles. Now, I'll keep up the blog, but I'll be weighing in on life in South Florida and, when it's relevant, how life down here relates to life elsewhere.

I love living in Florida, 'cause I rarely have to use my imagination when I ask "what if..."

So here's a scenario for you: A 20-year-old Lakeland, FL, man, a wannabe rapper, posts a song called "Kill Me a Cop" on the MySpace page of a "homemade" record label operated by an acquaintance. The song mentions two active duty Lakeland cops by name, along with a local sheriff's deputy and police dog who were killed in the line of duty. A gang unit officer from Lakeland, trawling the Web, comes across the song and begins investigating. A short time later, the man, Antavio Johnson, already in jail on a probation violation, is criminally charged with "corruption by threat of public servant" . He later pleads no contest. He is now serving a 2-year prison term on that plea, because the actions that constituted "corruption by threat" were his posting for public consumption a song, whose lyrics pointedly said that he fantacized about killing police officers.

Setting aside whatever distaste you have for rap tunes in general, and saving for a later date the deep discussion of Johnson's intellect, what do you think of the charges and conviction?

I have lots of cop friends. I have cop relatives. I have cop professional associates. And I think it's despicable for anyone to target cops for violence. There's no excuse for it. On the other hand, giving cops special consideration isn't necessary. We could substitute "cops" for teachers, reporters, homemakers, preachers, women, kids, men with one leg, women with no arms, etc. And it would still be despicable to target that group with murder.

BUT (you had to know that was coming), what if I told you this young man's friends and family say that he wrote that song several years ago around the time he was 16 or 17, after a run-in with a couple of Lakeland cops, whom he felt had picked on him? Reportedly, it was the same two officers he named in the song lyrics. But I haven't confirmed that. Would that revelation strengthen or weaken your position?

My immediate reaction to hearing this story was this guy sounds like a dumbass, who needed to get smacked "upside his head," as my grandmother would say. But I'm not sure what he did warrants two years in jail.

His friends and family could be lying to try to help get him out of this. But if they're telling the truth about this, Johnson has had a pretty long time to try to act on the song if he wanted to.

I find everything about this distasteful, but I think Johnson was just an idiot who was venting. Surely, he isn't the first artist who has written and/or performed words that constituted a threat. What about singers who've bragged in lyrics about their drug use, or about sexual exploits whose descriptions sometimes sound dangerously close to assault?

I've heard politicians make physical threats against other politicians - threats they later said were jokes or venting of pent-up anger - on radio shows that are broadcast to hundreds of thousands of people. Why weren't they charged.

Constitutional experts are saying that the Johnson was a knucklehead but that saying he wanted to kill cops in a very bad song was not enough to charge him with a crime.

I'm guessing this only went as far as it did, becaus he mentioned real cops by name. Had he kept his threat vague and broadly generalized, I'll bet he'd still be an unknown wannabe, instead of an incarcerated wannabe.

In mid June, Cleveland Browns wide receiver Donte Stallworth was blasted in the court of public opinion, when a criminal court in Miami sentenced him to one month in jail, two years house arrest, eight years probation, and 1,000 hours community service, after Stallworth pleaded guilty to DUI Manslaughter for driving under the influence here in Miami and striking a man who was attempting to cross the street on foot.

The outrage was palpable, as folks complained that Stallworth, a wealthy professional athlete, got what was called a sweetheart deal, and people hated it that he claimed his victim suddenly darted in front of him and was jaywalking...though court records say surveillance/security footage at the scene confirmed Stallworth's story.

About 1,500 miles away in the Boston area, a similar case recently played out. Ilse Horn, 89, finally pleaded guilty this week to Vehicular Homicide for striking and killing a young girl who was in a cross walk in June, while the girl was out for a stroll with her grandfather.

For weeks after the accident, Horn refused to acknowledge it was her fault. And even during her allocution this week, before even acknowledging that she was the driver, she told the judge she felt bad that "(her) car" struck the girl.

Horn's age makes you feel for her, right? Plus, she was sober. Plus she and her family had to flee Germany when she was young to escape the Nazis. And it's gut-wrenching that she's a widow.

But wait! Horn's late husband might have lived to see 89, also, had he not been killed in September 1992 in yet another fatal car accident in which she was driving.

What did Horn get for a sentence this week for soberly striking and killing that girl? Revocation of her driver's license, a $200 fine, and six years probation.

All dark humor aside, does anyone really think that Horn should have gone to jail? Hmmmm.

A young woman who has been drinking gets behind the wheel of her car and drives.

Along the way a police officer, apparently driving inattentively, rear-ends the young woman. When he gets out of his squad car and approaches hers, he picks up on the booze, puts two and two together, has her do field sobriety tests, concludes she is driving drunk, and takes her into custody.

Pretty standard, so far.

But the cop, for some inexplicable reason, fears that he will get in serious trouble for causing the fender bende (Who knows? Maybe he already had a personnel record of driving badly at work.). So he and other cops who come to the scene conspire to blame the accident on the woman.

That plan might be foolproof, except the cops seem to forget about the dashboard video cameras in squad cars, which, in this case, record their blame plan. After the woman is charged for driving drunk and cited for "causing" the accident, the dashcam tape leaks to the Public Defender's office and the media. Several cops and a crime scene technician are busted, suspended for their plan, and an internal investigation is launched at the police department.

The prosecutor's office, deciding the case is irreparably tainted by the cops' behavior, drops the drunk driving charges against the woman.

Pause here for a moment and soak in these details.

Now, how do you think the woman reacts to the conclusion of her case? If you think she is (a) angry that the cops tried to pin the accident on her, BUT (b) grateful that their shadiness got her off the hook for drunk driving, you're only half right.

The woman went on The Today Show and expressed her (justifiable) outrage at the cops' behavior...and then she said she plans to sue the police over how she was wronged and what she went through. She says the cops false accusations regarding the fender bender shattered her already shallow pockets and compelled her to put off returning to college this fall. Oh yeah, she admits she was driving under the influence, though she denies being drunk.

I feel for her, but because the cops pulled a shady stunt, this woman lucked out. She got a pass on drunk driving charges. Ask anyone who has ever been charged with drunk driving if a judge and/or jury ever bought the defense of "I was drinking, but I wasn't actually drunk."

Am I crazy, or along with her anger over the accident scheme, should this woman not be jumping for joy that the cops' bad behavior overshadowed her own? Instead of suing the police, shouldn't she call it even?

In her situation, knowing how much longterm damage drunk driving charges and convictions can cause, I think I'd be on my knees, shouting hallelujah! And then I'd go make a public service announcement to the effect of "Kids, I was driving under the influence - possibly drunk - and got away with it because the police tried to frame me for another offense. But I could have killed someone had that accident not occured and I had kept driving. So don't take a chance like I did. Call a cab or get a designated driver."

I swear, if she does sue, the prosecutor should reinstate the drunk driving charges.

Jan. 29th, 1999, Milwaukee, Wis. - It was so cold outside that morning that I could see my breath. How do I remember, you ask? 'Cause it was Wisconsin in January. You can always see your breath.

As soon as I arrived at work, the police scanners on my desk started going crazy. At the time I was the "cops" reporter, a coverage beat that encompasses fire and medical emergencies too.

All the scanner activity was about an explosion that had occured earlier that morning at an industrial plant on the city's south side. A crane operator had lowered a large piece of metal into a 10-foot high vat full of a corrosion treatment chemical. The chemical was water reactive though, and aparently the metal had gathered condensation as it sat overnight. So when the crane operator lowered the damp metal into the vat, the 1,200 degree chemical exploded, burning the crane operator over most of his body.

The city editor on duty, having heard the same explosion news I'd heard on the scanners, stood and began to look around the room to see who was available to send to the accident scene. I left to work on another story. When I got back to the newsroom an hour later, another writer was working on the explosion, but he was having a hard time with some of the fine details. I offered to take a crack at it, but the editor said the other writer had it under control.

The other writer did not have it under control. So again, I offered to help. The editor grew exasperated and gave me a mini-lecture on how every reporter worth a damn should be able to give himself a crash course on a topic and go and cover it intelligently. Then he asked something to the effect of "What do you bring to this story that he doesn't?"

So I told him. Less than two years earlier, I had closed out a six year career as a machinist on the U.S. Naval Air Station in Norfolk, Va. While working at the (now defunct) Naval Aviation Depot, one of my responsibilities in my machine shop was to maintain and monitor the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) book that contained a list of all the chemicals - hazardous and theoretically harmless - that we used. The MSDS book also contained details of the types of injuries each chemical could cause, the types of accidents that could happen when the chemicals came in contact with certain materials, how they should all be stored and handled, and what should be done in the event of an accident.

So yes, any good reporter should be able to cover everything. But in the case of a story about a chemical explosion, a reporter with personal experience using dangerous chemicals, monitoring their use, and even working with the Occupational Safety and Health Adminstration to make sure our monitoring books (MSDS) were up to date, is much better suited to report on things than a reporter whose work-related education is limited to the usual college classes.

What does this have to do with Sotomayor? Much has been made over this quote from a speech she gave in 2001: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Without any context, that comment was out of order and Sotomayor was wrong for making such a broad generalization.

BUT, her sentiment was correct. And before anyone blusters and shakes a fist at their computer screen think for a moment. This post is not about Sotomayor's personal politics, or partisanship. It is about reaction to that quote. This does not have to be about race. You can make it about race if you want. But when I say the sentiment is correct, I mean about broad experiences vs. narrow experiences.

In the analogy of the chemical explosion story, I made that point. My colleague and I were both able reporters. But I was better suited for that particular assignment because my professional experiences were broader and more relevant than his.

If you and I are both computer programmers, and you've programmed for Company A, and I've programmed for companies A, B, and C, then my experiences are broader than yours. And my insights to the world of professional programming may be deeper than yours.